Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (153080)	10/10/2002 11:53:20 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584771

I read a lot of arguments, and they are mostly anything but cogent. The one question NONE of these people can respond to is: "What happens if you are wrong, and Saddam DOES develop a nuke and deliver it to NYC in a shipping container" via Turkey? Assuming there is a 0.001% chance of this happening, the consequences of being wrong are staggering. The answer is, of course, easy, but difficult to mouth: EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING HAPPENS. The United States, as we know it, ceases to exist. The economy is destroyed. People can no longer function. The healthcare system crashes. Freedom is over. I've yet to hear an opponent give a thoughtful response -- from Dennis Kucinich all the way down to Ted on this board. Not one of them has a response. Because there is no conceivable acceptable answer. What if WE are wrong? Big Deal. We get rid of a dictator and mass murderer, and everyone will be glad we did it. A classic no-lose situation. No downside.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (153080)	10/10/2002 1:31:23 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584771

I read a lot of arguments, and they are mostly anything but cogent. Basically, I would accept argument from someone who supported first Iraq war, but opposed bombing of Yugoslavia. This way, there would be a consistency in their argument, which is, you don't go around attacking sovereign countries unless attacked first (or allies attacked), or facing imminent attack. The list of people who make this extremely simple argument (and do so consistently) is surprisingly short. Joe, its amazing how your mind works........you apparently have concluded that the Kosovo and Iraq scenarios are the same. With that conclusion comes the affirmation that if Clinton can be aggressive in Kosovo, Bush can be aggressive in Iraq. It doesn't matter that both moves may be perceived as bad or inappropriate but rather there simply needs to be consistency. Its all about partisan politics and not what's best for the country. If one party can do it why can't the other. Well, I don't agree with you that the two situations are the same but I can see how you might think they were. So then, if the NATO intervention was wrong, why perpetuate the wrongness by attacking Iraq? ted